Supreme Court Reserves Verdict in SLP Case Amid Concerns Over Vakalatnama and Legal Mistakes
Last Updated on September 9, 2024 by Srijan Raj
The Supreme Court has reserved orders in a case where the petitioner denied filing any Special Leave Petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him. The order impugned in the SLP had put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, as informed by respondents during court proceedings, the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner’s knowledge).
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter and reserved the verdict, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly.Justice Trivedi came down heavily on Advocates-on-Record for their callous approach in practising before the Supreme Court, especially insofar as filing of vakalatnamas and appearing before the court was concerned. He called for something to be done and said that there is no system or method in the Supreme Court.
In response to Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave’s prayer that the Advocate-on-Record in the case be let off with a warning this time, the judge added that there is no system or method in the Supreme Court.The background of the case is that Nitish Katara was a Delhi businessman who was murdered in 2002 by one Vikas Yadav, son of politician DP Yadav.
The trial court had found it to be a case of honor killing and convicted Vikas Yadav, giving him a life sentence in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court had sentenced Vikas Yadav to 25 years’ imprisonment without remission.The present case began with the petitioner filing an FIR against one SS and others, alleging that they kidnapped his daughter R and took her away. On an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against AK.
An application for recall of this order was filed by R, but the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the present SLP was filed in the name of the petitioner (R’s father).On July 31, the bench considered the issue of the petitioner’s signatures on a vakalatnama. When it was informed by an AoR that he received the petitioner’s signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C), and did not witness the petitioner sign it himself, the bench expressed serious displeasure.
The concerned Notary entered appearance and admitted the mistake of attesting the petitioner’s affidavit in his absence, based on identification of his signatures by Advocate C.
